Lowest magnification for 1000 yards??

I just recently bought a 7 mm mag for long-range shooting and hunting. I'm looking at putting a decent scope on the rifle but keeping the length, weight, and turret height to a minimum. I plan on putting it in a rifle scabbard on a pack for backpacking in on foot on spot and stalk hunts. Hunting I would think 800 to maybe, possibly 1000 yards and target shooting just slinging and stuff out to a mile for fun. I have used a Siggtron 8-32 x 56 SIII LR out to a mile it worked wonderfully but length weight and turret height is a little more than I'm looking for. I have been looking at and considering a Lupold VX5 HD 3-15x44or52 , Leupold vx6 3-18x44or50 or 6-24x52(not the hd), Vortex razor LH 3-15x42, as well as the Night Force SHV 4-14x56. My question to you guys is what is the best compromise in the lowest magnification you prefer for hunting at longer ranges and target shooting at longer longer ranges? What scopes would you recommend keeping close to $1000. Thanks!!

I think a 10x is the minimum for 1000y. I have made shoots on a 10 inch steel plate at 1000y just fine so 10x will work for sure.

1x per 100 yards is all you need for big game. I like around 16x on my hunting scopes because it gives a bit more detail on the long range shots and its nicer for shooting 200 yard groups on paper. With 24x the field of view is so narrow that its hard to find your target in the scope. A 4-16 or 3-18 is about ideal for me. If I was really trying to save weight I'd look hard at the Leupold 2-12x VX-6. The glass on these scopes is amazing so you can get by with less magnification.

dfanonymous said:

I think a 10x is the minimum for 1000y. I have made shoots on a 10 inch steel plate at 1000y just fine so 10x will work for sure.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Most of my scopes are IOR 4-14x50 and Leupold VX6's in 3-18x50 and 4-24x50.
I rarely exceed running it up beyond 10x other than to really judge racks, size of the animal etc even on targets the size of a coyote.

Too much magnification causes as many or more problems than too little.

I agree with the 10x as a minimum for 1,000 yards, also. I use a standard, straight 10 power just to stay in practice for 'just in case'. There will be compromises for any decision made which has to encompass such a wide range of activities. No one scope will accommodate your needs perfectly and the scabbard could be a problem for anything like this.

But given the choice for a reasonably compact long range scope for both hunting and longer range steel, I have switched to these. Actually, I use the RZ1000 in the Zeiss but the 800 would suit you better I think.

Zeiss Conquest HD5 5-25X50 - RZ800
Swarovski Optik Z6 5-30X50 BRH Riflescope

Yes, the Swarovski is expensive but you will not find better glass and a more compact design which will work under both sets of circumstances that you ask for. Swarovski has put their absolute best foot forward in order to maintain the highest standards for scopes released into the U.S. Read the reviews.

Regards.

This is so funny... I just now got on line to ask the exact same question and there it is being answered in the first message on the top. LOL

I have scopes with 14, 20 and 22 power as the higher end magnifications and was just now trying to figure out which rifles to put them on. I'll be following this topic closely to help make my decisions.

So... Anyone else want to weigh in?

at 600 yards my reticle at 14x covers the entire center portion of the smaller target. (1") How big is the aiming area on the target at 1000 yards?

excaliber said:

at 600 yards my reticle at 14x covers the entire center portion of the smaller target. (1") How big is the aiming area on the target at 1000 yards?

Click to expand...

I feel, especially with a FFP, that as long as the reticle does completely cover the target you ought to be good.
My gongs are 10" and I have two set up one at 1050 and the other at 1069 (there a reason for the random number). Then I have one at 1000. Will a fixed 10x you can see 4 quadrants of the gong when the crosshair is centered, so if .1 mil at 1000y is 3.6 inches you can probably figure round about what you are looking for...round about.

sable tireur said:

I agree with the 10x as a minimum for 1,000 yards, also. I use a standard, straight 10 power just to stay in practice for 'just in case'. There will be compromises for any decision made which has to encompass such a wide range of activities. No one scope will accommodate your needs perfectly and the scabbard could be a problem for anything like this.

But given the choice for a reasonably compact long range scope for both hunting and longer range steel, I have switched to these. Actually, I use the RZ1000 in the Zeiss but the 800 would suit you better I think.

Zeiss Conquest HD5 5-25X50 - RZ800
Swarovski Optik Z6 5-30X50 BRH Riflescope

Yes, the Swarovski is expensive but you will not find better glass and a more compact design which will work under both sets of circumstances that you ask for. Swarovski has put their absolute best foot forward in order to maintain the highest standards for scopes released into the U.S. Read the reviews.

Regards.

Click to expand...

How does the Zeiss Conquest track? Is it accurate and repeatable?

I have owned and used 4 different Zeiss Conquest scopes with the Z-reticle, one from the previous design, Rapid-Z1000 and 3 with the current design, HD5. All have passed the tracking and return zero test at the very top of the exercise I've done with other brands every time. I wouldn't continue to buy a brand unless it was both accurate and repeatable, not for this cost.

sable tireur said:

I have owned and used 4 different Zeiss Conquest scopes with the Z-reticle, one from the previous design, Rapid-Z1000 and 3 with the current design, HD5. All have passed the tracking and return zero test at the very top of the exercise I've done with other brands every time. I wouldn't continue to buy a brand unless it was both accurate and repeatable, not for this cost.

Click to expand...

If you hunt in cold weather, stay away from HD5's. The mag ring freezes up.

Hornhunter32 said:

If you hunt in cold weather, stay away from HD5's. The mag ring freezes up.

Click to expand...

Have you brought this up with the Technical/QC folks at Zeiss? If yes, what was their answer? If no, why not?

I've had and seen exceptions for nearly every piece of equipment and component I can think of. It's always possible that one or two pieces get by the inspection process given the volume of production. But in most cases, these are exceptions, not the rule or the common occurrence.

Not that my observations are infallible but I have never read or heard about this problem. I am not affiliated with nor compensated by Zeiss or any other manufacturer.

Regards.

CarbonLead said:

I just recently bought a 7 mm mag for long-range shooting and hunting. I'm looking at putting a decent scope on the rifle but keeping the length, weight, and turret height to a minimum. I plan on putting it in a rifle scabbard on a pack for backpacking in on foot on spot and stalk hunts. Hunting I would think 800 to maybe, possibly 1000 yards and target shooting just slinging and stuff out to a mile for fun. I have used a Siggtron 8-32 x 56 SIII LR out to a mile it worked wonderfully but length weight and turret height is a little more than I'm looking for. I have been looking at and considering a Lupold VX5 HD 3-15x44or52 , Leupold vx6 3-18x44or50 or 6-24x52(not the hd), Vortex razor LH 3-15x42, as well as the Night Force SHV 4-14x56. My question to you guys is what is the best compromise in the lowest magnification you prefer for hunting at longer ranges and target shooting at longer longer ranges? What scopes would you recommend keeping close to $1000. Thanks!!

Click to expand...

Someone mention a scope I compared with another scope. You will notice I include some info from a Swarovski z5 5-25X52, Leupold VX-6 4-24X52 with the test. Here it is.

July 19,2017 (Completely clear sky) I use a military optics chart for resolution comparison. I call the largest group of lines 1, and the next one down 2, and so forth.

I purchased a Zeiss Conquest HD 5-26X50. It has a 1" tube body and weighs 22.7 ounces. It was on closeout at Sportsmans Warehouse for $999.00. Down from $1,199. I hoped it would literally smoke the Bushnell 6500. After I adjusted the ocular as best I could for my eye I set the magnification ring on 25X. The evening sun was shining near the optics chart 127 yards away, but not directly on it. The chart was shaded from the evening sun by a tree. After much fussing with the HD5 I could see 3 – 6. I then set the Bushnell on 25X. After a similar amount of time I could see 4 – 1.

After this I set both on an indicated 10X for the low light comparison. This part of the test was to adjust them as sharply as I could on some deer antlers with three points on one side 131 yards away in the woods. Here I wanted to see how long I could distinguish the large point nearest the eye guard. I was still hoping beyond hope the Zeiss would be better than the Bushnell in this test. This evening the Zeiss went down at 8:33PM. At that time the Bushnell 6500 was still bright and smoked it by twelve minutes. It went down at 8:45PM. In this test the Swarovski z5 5-25X52, the Leupold VX-6 4-24X52, and the Bushnell all went down in the same minute.

So far the only two scopes that were so much better than these last three were a
Schimt & Bender 12 1/2-50X56 and a Nightforce 12-42X56. There was no need to go back and forth between the two to see it was better than the Bushnell like I did with those above. These two remind me of the first time I looked through Swarovski binoculars.

This is a question my brother and I were discussing. I am not going to touch on the target end of things. But will say this. There are guys shooting two miles with only 25X power with very good groups. We are talking less then 21 inches. That to me at two miles is excellent.

Now my Opinion for the power needed for 1000 yards in a hunting situation is 10x would work fine. No more then that is needed. In fact a good 3-9x40 scope is all you need for 1000 yard big game hunting. As long as the optics are good and clear and crisp that's all you really need. I used to use a Nikon 2.5-10x42 Monarch scope. I will say this it was not the best glass a guy could buy. But even as it was it was no problem to see a three to four inch object at 1200 yards. I say this to say that 10 power is all you need for 1000 yards and a little farther.

I like scope that can be turned down low. That's on reason I like my SWFA 3-15x42 MOA second focal plane scope. And it only cost 499.99